If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Originally Posted by pat grimshaw

The DOI said all Men are created equal.

But somehow every state politician, every local politician and all those federal politicians seem to think they have an unalienable Right to be superior and tell others how to live their lives.

Why do you contradict yourself... marriage between just one sexuality is placing one group above another and yet you seem to claim all men created equal.... weird.

So i take it in Australia if they pass gay marriage then you, Pat Grimshaw will be required to get married to a man cause you like cocks. I cant believe they would force you to live that way... the evil minions.

Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Originally Posted by JayHawk

Why do you contradict yourself... marriage between just one sexuality is placing one group above another and yet you seem to claim all men created equal.... weird.

So i take it in Australia if they pass gay marriage then you, Pat Grimshaw will be required to get married to a man cause you like cocks. I cant believe they would force you to live that way... the evil minions.

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Originally Posted by pat grimshaw

I'm sorry I'm not here for an argument or a theoretical debate. I'd rather listen to people who have been through long-term relationships and shared legal rights over property.

You insert these really nonsensical wedges into topics where people are discussing real life issues and it amounts to little other than sniping and trolling. You never back up what you say or make a clear position, and the few that you do (such as in this thread) are indefensible.

If you don't want to discuss these topics or defend your bizarre statements don't make them?

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Originally Posted by eastofeden

I LOVE not being married because I know when I go home...or when he comes home...which is everyday for the last 26 1/2 years...it is ONLY because we both WANT to. I find that infinitely more rewarding than doing it because we have entered into an institution which is designed by religious heterosexuals.

Traditional marriage vows...BARF. I want honesty and respect and I give that in return. Everything else is negotiable. I definitely do not expect anyone to obey me and if they cherish me that is something that should come naturally...not something you promise and force.

The 'til end of time stuff...sorry...most people wear masks and it can take years for you to see what is behind them. Promising eternity to a relative stranger is a bad idea...especially when you make it legal.

I have a problem with other people defining anything for me and people and society in general love to define marriage for everyone else when they should mind their own business.…

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Originally Posted by pat grimshaw

I'm sorry I'm not here for an argument or a theoretical debate. I'd rather listen to people who have been through long-term relationships and shared legal rights over property.

The fucking point is nobody is forcing you to do a fucking thing... yet they prevent you from doing something. DO you require the coddling of the state to be able to do alright in life? Because I am free and I dont need the government holding my hand telling me what to do.... I am perfectly fucking capable of making my own choices. Apparently gays in Australia are way too simple minded to be trusted to make marriage decisions on their own.

Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Originally Posted by pat grimshaw

I'm sorry I'm not here for an argument or a theoretical debate. I'd rather listen to people who have been through long-term relationships and shared legal rights over property.

What I meant to say was that I value the experience of Sixthson, eastofeden and Ibill1 have been through long-term relationships and have coped with the practicalities of property, legal rights, visiting hospital etc. etc. rather than have an argument with people who I suspect haven't been through a long-term relationship and might see this all as theory.

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Well here is what i have been through a 11 year relationship that has had its share of ups and downs. Yet he has an auotimune disease and is hypothyrhoidic which i have ample health insurance to cover a wife if she had a twat and as many little spawn as she can shit out... I can cover all of them but I cannot cover the one person i loved. How fucked is that?

What I hear you saying is feckless young people with nothing better to do are pushing for this because they know no better.

What I also hear is you complaining that federal or state officials have more power than the other to tell us how to live... yet you support hem telling us not to get married cause that is a hetro thingy.

What you are saying does not jive with reality. People have the right to decide to marry or not... yet that right does not exist in most of my country and it sounds like all of yours...

So back to my original statement. What sane gay man would be against gay marriage being allowed for himself and others?

Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Back to the subject.

2 cases :

- Prop 8 stroked down by 8th circuit. For me in essence it is the fact that a civil right was withdrawn for a particular type of citizen. I am convinced the SCOTUS will upheld the 8th circuit judgement. To not do so would open the door to many unpleasant things.

- Windsor vs DOMA. That's more complicated I think. It's a case of discrimination by the federal power against the law of a state. I think the SCOTUS would like to judge it without judging the substance, but I don't see how they would do that. And if they upheld the 2nd Circuit decision, their way of doing it would be extremely important. If it's on the discrimination subject, then I think DOMA could be challenged in every states, and so federally someone married in a state would be married in every state, with only the state portion of the law not applicable to them. If the SCOTUS disallow the 2nd circuit, we would need a congress vote to end DOMA for ENDA, that would not be before 2014 I'm afraid.

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Originally Posted by oakpope

Back to the subject.

2 cases :

- Prop 8 stroked down by 8th circuit. For me in essence it is the fact that a civil right was withdrawn for a particular type of citizen. I am convinced the SCOTUS will upheld the 8th circuit judgement. To not do so would open the door to many unpleasant things.

- Windsor vs DOMA. That's more complicated I think. It's a case of discrimination by the federal power against the law of a state. I think the SCOTUS would like to judge it without judging the substance, but I don't see how they would do that. And if they upheld the 2nd Circuit decision, their way of doing it would be extremely important. If it's on the discrimination subject, then I think DOMA could be challenged in every states, and so federally someone married in a state would be married in every state, with only the state portion of the law not applicable to them. If the SCOTUS disallow the 2nd circuit, we would need a congress vote to end DOMA for ENDA, that would not be before 2014 I'm afraid.

They have directed the lawyers who will argue the cases to prove standing. That means they will reject both cases on grounds of standing and hence why these two were chosen.

Once rejected then California's gay marriage resumes and DOMA is not legal in the second district only. No national rulings.

SO by the time the cases are brought in every other state and finally work their way to the SCOTUS it will be well after 2022.

Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Originally Posted by oakpope

I am not convinced every other cases would need to go to SCOTUS. If DOMA is unconstitutional why would it be in some circuit and not in other ? Doesn't make much sense to me

The court doesn't rule on the second district which determined DOMA unconstitutional. It rejects the case on standing ... (which is why they are making the lawyers argue standing) ... once rejected then the ruling only exist in second district because that is all they have authority to pass judgement upon.

In the case of DOMA it is a federal law and the federal laws are defended by the executive and the department of Justice. In this instance President Obama has refused to defend DOMA so republicans hired outside lawyers to defend it for them. The scotus is likely to determine that those hired lawyers are not able to make a claim.

Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Originally Posted by JayHawk

The court doesn't rule on the second district which determined DOMA unconstitutional. It rejects the case on standing ... (which is why they are making the lawyers argue standing) ... once rejected then the ruling only exist in second district because that is all they have authority to pass judgement upon.

In the case of DOMA it is a federal law and the federal laws are defended by the executive and the department of Justice. In this instance President Obama has refused to defend DOMA so republicans hired outside lawyers to defend it for them. The scotus is likely to determine that those hired lawyers are not able to make a claim.

I lack proper knowledge of your judicial system I'm afraid. In France the supreme court (Court de Cassation) judges only the appeal, but on form only.

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Just to be clarify..I completely support marriage equality for everyone and when Obama came out in support of marriage equality I donated $$$ to him within the hour for the first time...and pretty much weekly after that solely BECAUSE of his stance on marriage equality.

I just despise the institution of marriage...just as many straight people despise the institution of marriage....surely marriage equality includes choosing to avoid marriage as well?

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Originally Posted by oakpope

I lack proper knowledge of your judicial system I'm afraid. In France the supreme court (Court de Cassation) judges only the appeal, but on form only.

Our court would judge on the appeal as well but first it must determine whether or not the appeal had standing in the first place.

Originally Posted by eastofeden

Just to be clarify..I completely support marriage equality for everyone and when Obama came out in support of marriage equality I donated $$$ to him within the hour for the first time...and pretty much weekly after that solely BECAUSE of his stance on marriage equality.

I just despise the institution of marriage...just as many straight people despise the institution of marriage....surely marriage equality includes choosing to avoid marriage as well?

Indeed it does. I have no idea where I am at on actually getting married. At this point it would be nice to have the option... I will say that in 2008 I would have probably married and would have subsequently divorced or at a minimum seperated.

Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Originally Posted by The White Stripe

...No one demands that federal officials have more power than state officials. It says it in the the US Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Federal Government > State Government.

I think you misunderstand the American federal system of government. The national government is not omnipotent, and the several states are to a large extent autonomous, thanks to a little thing called the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. It says that powers not specifically delegated to the national government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution, are the province of the several states. Marriage and family law has historically been a state function, and each state has been free to make and enforce it's own laws to that effect. This is why interracial marriage was legal in some states but not others until the 1967 Loving decision invalidated antimiscegination laws as violations of the 14th Amendment's guarantees of equal protection and due process.

IF SCOTUS decides that the parties in both cases have standing to bring suit, then several things can happen. In the case of Hollingsworth (Prop 8), the court may strike down the 9th Circuit's ruling (Prop 8 survives), uphold the 9th Circuit ruling (Prop 8 dies, but the ruling only applies to CA), or it may adopt the district court's more broad finding of civil marriage as an essential civil right, which would then invalidate all prohibitions against same-sex couples entering into civil marriages.

The DOMA case is really about whether or not the national government has the right to recognize some civil marriages a state performs but not others. The 2nd Circuit decision only dealt with Article III, which defined civil marriage as only between one man and one woman for the purpose of recognition under federal statutes and the related benefits and obligations that recognition entails. If SOCTUS upholds the 9th Circuit ruling on the narrow parameters set by that ruling, and further upholds the 2nd Circuit's ruling on Article III of DOMA, the effect is that marriage equality is restored in CA, the federal government would recognize civil marriages between same-sex couples in states where such marriages are legal, but states where marriage equality does not exist would be under no obligation to recognize civil marriages between same-sex couples (which is addressed in Article I of DOMA IIRC). I think this is the most likely outcome in the DOMA case, as having the feds operating under different rules in different areas of the country would be a legal and logistical nightmare. So, it gives federal law uniformity, while preserving the rights of the several states under the Constitution's federal system.

I'm eager to hear the court's decision, and the legal reasoning behind it. It should be fascinating.

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Originally Posted by legend145

Won't happen. Scalia Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito that's all you need to strike it down. They might let states decide but I'm sure it won't become federal law.

SCOTUS doesn't make law, it only kills laws. In this case it will almost certainly kill DOMA; what it will do to Prop 8 will be interesting, but I expect it to be minimal.

The result I'm thinking we'll see is that the federal government will have to recognize the marriages of people done in states with same-sex marriage included, and that if a state recognizes same-sex marriage it can't take it away.

I do NOT expect SCOTUS to tell states they have to recognize the same-sex marriages done in other states, however untidy that may be.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Originally Posted by legend145

I'm not. I'm actually surprised they took the cases. They have been dodging the issue for 2 decades. Just 9 years ago they struck down Texas anti sodomy law. Gays are not considered a suspect class or even intermediate suspect class. The court just rules on a rational basis. Also you have to look at congress. Even if they say gay marriage is constitutional congress can still pass legislation to block marriage. As a matter a fact the Defense of Marriage Act was signed in response to Hawaii and other states recognizing gay marriage.

Laws from Congress that are unconstitutional on the face of them can be taken to the Court rather directly. If a law is too blatantly contrary to a recent Court ruling, the Court may just issue a rebuke. Beyond that, while the executive and legislative can't officially ask SCOTUS for advice, unofficially it's done anyway, and any president thinking about signing such a thing... wouldn't.

And if Congress and the president went ahead and did it anyway, the Court would just declare it unconstitutional rather promptly.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Originally Posted by legend145

The law wouldn't be useless if it's in the Constitution. The court is bound by the Constitution. I don't think congress will do it because it's too divided anyway.

If you mean an amendment, there's no way it would pass Congress in the first place, and about as much chance it would pass the states.

Frak, the Congress won't even do an amendment declaring that only living, breathing individuals citizens and legal residents have any political rights, and that's just common sense!

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Originally Posted by JayHawk

Not a countdown at all. The Justices indicated both cases should be argued on standing. The first one on Prop 8 because the state installed the law but a group other than the state appealed the courts when they struck down the law based on the constitution.

The second because the DOMA law is a federal law and the federal government isn't fighting it ... Obama told the justice department who represents the Federal government not to defend it so Republicans hired lawyers to defend the law.....

The court will likely decide neither party had standing to appeal and therefore the lower court ruling stands... so in other words DOMA will be struck down in District 2 and Gay marriage will resume in California but no other net national effect.

You have a source for that? The info from Trial Tracker says standing will be an added question for Prop 8, not the sole question, and doesn't say anything about standing for Windsor.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Originally Posted by legend145

but Lawerence v Texas was a privacy issue about sex. The liberal judges Stevens, Souter, and Oconner who were a part of the Lawerence majority are gone they were replaced by Kagan, Sotomayor, and Alito(who is conservative). Alito,Scalia, thomas, and Roberts are for sure against it. Kennedy is the swig vote. The court is not going to argue the merits of the case. They won't address the equality of gay of marriage. They will determine if the case has standing and if it doesn't then that's end of the argument.

Don't be so sure about Roberts -- he's a states' rights fan who David Boies expects to go with the position that the states define and the federal government recognizes and shuts up about it; on other words, the Prop 8 legal team expects a 6-3 decision on both cases, in favor of states' and individual rights, which means nuking DOMA and Prop 8 both. In Boies' view, the only real question is how narrow they'll make the Prop 8 ruling.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

12-144
HOLLINGSWORTH, DENNIS, ET AL. V. PERRY, KRISTIN M., ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether
petitioners have standing under Article III, §2 of the Constitution in this case.

12-307
UNITED STATES V. WINDSOR, EDITH S., ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following questions: Whether the Executive Branch’s agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case; andwhether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives has Article III standing in this case.

Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Originally Posted by The White Stripe

My Political Science professor was talking about this in class the other day. Evidently this is a "All or Nothing" case. If they vote to not legalize gay-marriage it will over turn all states that HAVE ALREADY legalized gay-marriage. So this is essentially and issue of state governments of states where gay marriage is not legal not wanting to recognize the marriages of people from pro-gay marriage states. This is going to be interesting and a very publicized ruling either way. I hope they do the right thing.

They don't "vote" whether or not to "legalize gay marriage" at all, they vote on the issues of the cases as they decide them.

Originally Posted by JayHawk

Then all of these racist halfwits who normally call and say the most obscene bullshit about Obama and blacks and gays ... and well you get the idea.... they called and not a single one of them could find a reason why and then they started asking why the fuck was it governments responsibility to differentiate between couple.

I was pleased and amazed. the conversation has finally started to become what it should have been all along. Govt get out of my life and treat us all equally.

Nice.

Originally Posted by JayHawk

What sane gay man would be against gay marriage being allowed for himself and others?

One might ask what sane human would be against human marriage being allowed for himself and others.

Originally Posted by JayHawk

The court doesn't rule on the second district which determined DOMA unconstitutional. It rejects the case on standing ... (which is why they are making the lawyers argue standing) ... once rejected then the ruling only exist in second district because that is all they have authority to pass judgement upon.

In the case of DOMA it is a federal law and the federal laws are defended by the executive and the department of Justice. In this instance President Obama has refused to defend DOMA so republicans hired outside lawyers to defend it for them. The scotus is likely to determine that those hired lawyers are not able to make a claim.

From SCOTUSblog:

Prop. 8 is granted on the petition question -- whether 14th Am. bars Calif. from defining marriage in traditional way

In Windsor, the government petition (12-307) is the one granted. . . . whether Sec. 3 of DOMA violates equal protection under 5th Amendment

In both cases, standing is an added question, not the main one. SCOTUS could actually find no standing but go ahead and rule on the merits anyway, if they want.

Last edited by Kulindahr; December 9th, 2012 at 08:04 PM.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Originally Posted by ChickenGuy

JayHawk, it may shock you to realise that NOT EVERY gay man WANTS to be married.

There are a LOT especially in Europe, including me, who PREFER civil partnerships and civil unions.

And if I were ever to partner, I would NEVER call it a 'wedding' or a 'marriage' or a 'husband'.

What we need is multiple options, and the separation of the legal and religious aspects.

But feel free to now accuse me of betrayal and selfishness and being insane.

It wouldnt shock me in anyway whatsoever. As I indicated above I doubt sincerely I would get married if it was granted tomorrow. Although if I had possessed the right I would have married in 2008 no doubt.

What astounds me is not that gay men would want to get married or not... that is human nature and the nature of different relationships/people .... NO... what astounds me is that any gay man would argue that it is stupid for us to have the CHOICE of marriage.

Additionally, I actually think ALL unions between adults whether hetro or homo should be called a union and given the legal status as such. Marriage should be reserved for churches. That is my opinion.

What you do in your angry opinion here is fail to read every word I have written on this subject and in this thread. And it is insane to desire to be a second class citizen. That is due to not having choice... NOT because you lack the desire to marry.

Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

I see no 'choice' when it is continually being presented by EVERYONE both on here and in the media as the usual ridiculously polarised choice of TWO. I don't like this issue (and many others) being ALWAYS portrayed as a black-and-white choice between two extremes. Anyone wanting the slightest shade of grey or a third option is marginalised and sidelined, and often ignored, and even ridiculed.

It's constantly being portrayed as EITHER:

Option 1 - NO rights, NOTHING.

Option 2 - Full ceremonial church wedding with blessing and passing of rings and the automatic use of the terms 'husband' and 'marriage' to describe it.

^ THAT is my 'choice'?

What I suggest is:

Option 3 - A civil partnership, that is a purely legal term involving a written contract that two people sign in an office, designating them 'partners'. That's it.

Ideally we should be at a stage where these two completely different positions (Options 2 and 3) are separated in people's minds.

And there is even room for Option 4 - a civil ceremony at town hall with most of Option 2 but without the religious overtones.

Here's my point....

What I find frustrating and annoying is that NONE of these variety of choices and options are being discussed or debated in the mainstream media or indeed in popular opinion.

Although I accept that JayHawk may have alluded to this when he says 'marriage should be reserved for churches'.

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Originally Posted by ChickenGuy

And if I were ever to partner, I would NEVER call it a 'wedding' or a 'marriage' or a 'husband'.

How about a "welding"? Just a change of one letter...

Originally Posted by ChickenGuy

What we need is multiple options, and the separation of the legal and religious aspects.

Absolutely. With apologies to the ignorant tight-ass club, I'd say Jesus would agree.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Originally Posted by ChickenGuy

I see no 'choice' when it is continually being presented by EVERYONE both on here and in the media as the usual ridiculously polarised choice of TWO. I don't like this issue (and many others) being ALWAYS portrayed as a black-and-white choice between two extremes. Anyone wanting the slightest shade of grey or a third option is marginalised and sidelined, and often ignored, and even ridiculed.

It's constantly being portrayed as EITHER:

Option 1 - NO rights, NOTHING.

Option 2 - Full ceremonial church wedding with blessing and passing of rings and the automatic use of the terms 'husband' and 'marriage' to describe it.

^ THAT is my 'choice'?

What I suggest is:

Option 3 - A civil partnership, that is a purely legal term involving a written contract that two people sign in an office, designating them 'partners'. That's it.

Ideally we should be at a stage where these two completely different positions (Options 2 and 3) are separated in people's minds.

And there is even room for Option 4 - a civil ceremony at town hall with most of Option 2 but without the religious overtones.

Here's my point....

What I find frustrating and annoying is that NONE of these variety of choices and options are being discussed or debated in the mainstream media or indeed in popular opinion.

Although I accept that JayHawk may have alluded to this when he says 'marriage should be reserved for churches'.

Well I can't argue with the finesse of your points. However the main argument being portrayed here by PatGrimShaw was that young inept and uninformed idiots were responsible for lobbying to get this and if they TRULY knew they wouldn't bother.

It may amuse you to understand that forever over in CEP I argued that we as a community would have been much more well received to have pursued Unions and left the church out of the process. That was rejected both by proponents here on CE&P and by lobbyist and equality groups nationwide. Separate is not equal. That is the simple truth. I have slowly changed my path because it is foolish to argue for something when everyone else in the same community is going for a different nomenclature.

Lets be completely honest though, what i want is all of the legal, tax, insurance, estate and medical protections normally granted a opposite sex spouse be granted to my same sex spouse. Whether you call it a union or marriage or pluto or oonfufu I could honestly care less. I simply want equality under the law.

Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Well I could type gay marriage or civil unions or equality under the law or whatever you wanna call it each time I responded to Pat.

I just think it is not completely sane to argue against choice even if you would not make that choice. Especially if your point is that if choice is given somehow that means government is telling you how to live. To me when the government prevents something like equal recognition it is then telling you how to live.

SO yeah I would take offense if I believed someone was telling me it is insane not to be married.

Your last line there... is the epitome of half the arguments in CE&P... folks take a portion of an interchange and go to war over a couple words. This thread should be a CEP thing imho...

Now since we fight like a married couple would you care to meet me at the alter? (lefty said he would drive... errr... provide transportation)

Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Originally Posted by JayHawk

Now since we fight like a married couple would you care to meet me at the alter?

You should alter your "alter" to "altar".

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Originally Posted by JayHawk

Now since we fight like a married couple would you care to meet me at the alter? (lefty said he would drive... errr... provide transportation)

How about a civil partnership inside a submarine with full military ceremony, presided over by the captain (do subs have captains?) after which, all the crew strip off, and we all get orgy-tastic with those muscular navy guys.

This will be an open relationship and strictly non-monogamous, after all.

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Originally Posted by xbuzzerx

I can't even take seriously the concept that opposition to this came up on a reasoning of "someone/something telling me what to do!"

I think Pat's trolling us.

I think they're/he's seeing it from the view of "having to conform to that religious institution in order to be together". That's a good reason to go with the renaming of the institution in the law, to show that it isn't the religious institution at all, but is a legal creation, nothing more nor less. Call it "union", call it "joining", call it "Whoo-hoo!", just call it something other than marriage. That might finally drive home the point to both religious imperialists and dimwit gays that it isn't what they do in churches.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Originally Posted by ChickenGuy

How about a civil partnership inside a submarine with full military ceremony, presided over by the captain (do subs have captains?) after which, all the crew strip off, and we all get orgy-tastic with those muscular navy guys.

This will be an open relationship and strictly non-monogamous, after all.

Well i cant post this in HT but here is a what I see as our wedding program....

Re: the countdown to the legalization of gay marriage in america begins.

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

I think they're/he's seeing it from the view of "having to conform to that religious institution in order to be together". That's a good reason to go with the renaming of the institution in the law, to show that it isn't the religious institution at all, but is a legal creation, nothing more nor less. Call it "union", call it "joining", call it "Whoo-hoo!", just call it something other than marriage. That might finally drive home the point to both religious imperialists and dimwit gays that it isn't what they do in churches.

I would accept this explanation if he hadn't launched into a tirade about Federal courts telling states what to do.